On 2014-05-08 17:39, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 8, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> RFC 5988 defines linking. It hasn't to do anything with MIME. It *does* define an HTTP header field, but that's only one way to represent a link.
>> Good point. I had forgotten that it became more generic as the discussion went on.
>>> The HTML equivalent is the <link> element, which has a "rel" attribute. One trivial approach would be just to adopt that as a top-level document, and to define those relation types we need (such as "doi").
>> But that's the point: if we know all the relation types we need, it would be much simpler to just create optional attributes to <rfc> for each of them.
>> If you can't decide if the problem statement is "we know the types of links we want" or "we want to allow all sorts of links", it is hard to design a solution, and particularly hard to design one that will make sense to authors who are not as familiar with web technologies as you are.
IMHO, the fact that the current proposal has two additional attributes
for DOIs and ISSNs hints that a more generic solution makes sense.
Best regards, Julian